Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fortnite Coming to AltStore on iOS in European Union
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I rather focus on what Epic considers sad news to them then more Epic crowing about going around Apple.
reference
Epic takes Fortnite off Galaxy Store in protest of anti-sideloading feature
Epic Games has announced it is taking Fortnite and its other games off of the Galaxy Store in protest of Samsung's Auto Blocker feature.
www.androidauthority.com
The losers in all of this are the community, which Epic doesn't care diddly-squat about at all. All the MacOS Fortnite users were dumped irregardless of the iOS Apple complaint. Now its all the various Samsung devices will likely have no access.
Perhaps this will help everyone else play something better.
Last edited:
If he ever gets tired of working in the video game industry, I imagine Tim Sweeney would make a fantastic content creator: the man loves stirring up pointless drama.
Sweeney is like a small child throwing a tantrum whenever the rules don’t fully benefit himself.
Although EPIC is an insufferable company, their Unreal Engine does help a lot of developers create cool games. I'm getting quite tired of hearing about Fortnite, though.In other news
Epic Games pulling Fortnite from Galaxy Store just as the game returns to iOS in the EU
Epic Games pulling Fortnite from Galaxy Store just as the game returns to iOS in the EUwww.phonearena.com
Are things never happy at Epic? If it isn't Apple now it's with Samsung.
Last edited:
“Customers who install AltStore must also pay 1.50 euros per year, a fee that is required because of Apple's CTF.”
If this is true, the subscription will be a huge blocker for many of us.
If this is true, the subscription will be a huge blocker for many of us.
I wouldnt worry about Epic. My concern is Facebook.
I fully expect them to either piggy back on another alt store or open their own store.
Remove their FB App from the App Store (in the EU anyway, and elsewhere that has "freedom") and force migration on all users.
Then by pass everything Apple has done to enforce privacy and data rape as before.
If that ever happens I'm done with FB and their apps and that includes WhatsApp.
I fully expect them to either piggy back on another alt store or open their own store.
Remove their FB App from the App Store (in the EU anyway, and elsewhere that has "freedom") and force migration on all users.
Then by pass everything Apple has done to enforce privacy and data rape as before.
If that ever happens I'm done with FB and their apps and that includes WhatsApp.
And what about 'Customers who install AltStore must also pay 1.50 euros per year,' which isn't to Apple, it's to the AltStore, yet all the AltStore pay is 0.50 to Apple?!What?!?!
That is an unreasonable markup and should be investigated!
And now we will see all the anti-EU saying this is a bad thing… because having some freedom and choices not dictated by a big huge corporate company is a bad thing. Lucky for you this approach the EU started will soon extend to all of you and you will have a new taste of the lost freedom you guys seem to have forgotten.
Now we’ll see what kind of safeguards AltStore and EpicGames have in place to prevent a kid from spending hundreds of dollars on V-Bucks to buy skins, weapons, and other virtual items costing real money. We’ll also examine how they comply with EU rules regarding effective age verification. The law is a double-edged sword.
Who said we need Apple chaperonage to help us deal with what our kids do? Common people wake the **** up!
Every fee model based on a percentage is inherently non-transparent and a pure profit mechanism. This applies to Apple, Google, Microsoft, and also to AltStore and the Epic Store.
It's not enough to simply state, "We use the fee to cover Apple's costs, server expenses, and payment processing."
Apple's fee is fixed at €0.50. Payment processing fees depend on the network but average around 2%. Server costs, at constant volumes, are constant. Let's say they're successful and need to manage a hundred servers with related storage. We're talking about several hundred thousand dollars a year, the costs of which should be attributed more or less consistently as they depreciate.
Now, if I subscribe to Fortnite at $9.99/month for the first time and download the game, AltStore/Epic will have to pay €0.50 to Apple, pay the card network, and keep the rest to cover my contribution to the server costs. For the second month's payment, they won't owe Apple anything and will only incur payment processing and server costs. But they won't charge me €0.50 less...
Let's break it down: $9.99/month subscription:
Let's say we consider this fair. If there are many users, they'll profit significantly, but if there are few users, a good portion of the business risk will have been passed on to them. There aren't many courageous entrepreneurs around.
If I decide to subscribe at an advantageous price of €99.99/year paid annually, they would still only give €0.50 to Apple. Then they would give 2% to the payment network (about €2) and would proportionally retain an enormous amount (€9.50) for the store server, which I would have used only once a year. The difference between using the server 12 times a year or just once a year is €2. So each use produces an additional cost of €0.16. Obviously, there's no connection between what we buy and the actual use of the money. The server cost doesn't vary whether I buy a €100 game or a €1 game: it will be the same. The same the storage, the same the bandwidth needed for each download. At most, it can vary based on the game's size; hosting and transmitting a 4GB game is different from a 1MB game. If we like being fooled, fine. Should we be fanatists of transparency and pro-customer practices we should demand fees proportional to quantifiably justifiable values such as infrastructure costs.
Apple, at least, has been clever enough to tie the fees to continuous API development, store curation, and the notarization and verification process (which can be bound to an app irrespecutful of its qualities). They don't tie it to costs that can be covered with one day of sales activity.
As a customer, I find myself unable to fully side with either party: my interests lie in a different direction altogether. I'm willing to pay what is necessary, provided that it's proportional to the value I receive. However, I'm wary of costs that are unnecessarily disproportionate to the expenses the entrepreneur actually incurs. For instance, I'm concerned when the profit margins they aim to secure are far beyond what can be reasonably justified.
It's not enough to simply state, "We use the fee to cover Apple's costs, server expenses, and payment processing."
Apple's fee is fixed at €0.50. Payment processing fees depend on the network but average around 2%. Server costs, at constant volumes, are constant. Let's say they're successful and need to manage a hundred servers with related storage. We're talking about several hundred thousand dollars a year, the costs of which should be attributed more or less consistently as they depreciate.
Now, if I subscribe to Fortnite at $9.99/month for the first time and download the game, AltStore/Epic will have to pay €0.50 to Apple, pay the card network, and keep the rest to cover my contribution to the server costs. For the second month's payment, they won't owe Apple anything and will only incur payment processing and server costs. But they won't charge me €0.50 less...
Let's break it down: $9.99/month subscription:
- €0.50 goes to Apple
- About €0.20 goes to the credit card network
- About €0.50 goes to AltStore for my share of their store usage
Let's say we consider this fair. If there are many users, they'll profit significantly, but if there are few users, a good portion of the business risk will have been passed on to them. There aren't many courageous entrepreneurs around.
If I decide to subscribe at an advantageous price of €99.99/year paid annually, they would still only give €0.50 to Apple. Then they would give 2% to the payment network (about €2) and would proportionally retain an enormous amount (€9.50) for the store server, which I would have used only once a year. The difference between using the server 12 times a year or just once a year is €2. So each use produces an additional cost of €0.16. Obviously, there's no connection between what we buy and the actual use of the money. The server cost doesn't vary whether I buy a €100 game or a €1 game: it will be the same. The same the storage, the same the bandwidth needed for each download. At most, it can vary based on the game's size; hosting and transmitting a 4GB game is different from a 1MB game. If we like being fooled, fine. Should we be fanatists of transparency and pro-customer practices we should demand fees proportional to quantifiably justifiable values such as infrastructure costs.
Apple, at least, has been clever enough to tie the fees to continuous API development, store curation, and the notarization and verification process (which can be bound to an app irrespecutful of its qualities). They don't tie it to costs that can be covered with one day of sales activity.
As a customer, I find myself unable to fully side with either party: my interests lie in a different direction altogether. I'm willing to pay what is necessary, provided that it's proportional to the value I receive. However, I'm wary of costs that are unnecessarily disproportionate to the expenses the entrepreneur actually incurs. For instance, I'm concerned when the profit margins they aim to secure are far beyond what can be reasonably justified.
Okay? And what does any of that have to do with what I said?
Unfortunately, they do. They have no taste, nor imagination, let alone principles to avoid EPIC games and its parent company.
This isn't a slant at the country, but I genuinely wonder how many people making those posts are from outside the US.
For whatever reason, the impression the US gives the rest of the world is that every single thing that exists needs to have a cult mentality attached to it. It has to be one side or the other, and if you're actually balanced about something then you're a "commie"? Is that right?
Either way the CTF that Apple charge will be the next thing to go. As it stands, they're literally the only company right now that are actively charging developers to use their OS as they please. Yes, they always paid app store fees, but to come out and say "sure we'll obey and let you install 3rd party apps, but it'll cost ya" is prime time for an EU fine.
The EU get a lot of hate on here because they try to look out for a consumer so they don't get screwed, which in itself sounds like crazy town, and I guarantee when they finally go after Microsoft and it's every growing list of anti-consumer practices that this board will erupt with glee.
For whatever reason, the impression the US gives the rest of the world is that every single thing that exists needs to have a cult mentality attached to it. It has to be one side or the other, and if you're actually balanced about something then you're a "commie"? Is that right?
Either way the CTF that Apple charge will be the next thing to go. As it stands, they're literally the only company right now that are actively charging developers to use their OS as they please. Yes, they always paid app store fees, but to come out and say "sure we'll obey and let you install 3rd party apps, but it'll cost ya" is prime time for an EU fine.
The EU get a lot of hate on here because they try to look out for a consumer so they don't get screwed, which in itself sounds like crazy town, and I guarantee when they finally go after Microsoft and it's every growing list of anti-consumer practices that this board will erupt with glee.
Last edited by a moderator:
Explain the Nintendo Switch and Sony PS5 then. Both charge developers 30%, and neither allow you to sideload games and circumvent their cut.
If I wanted a more open platform, and if things like removable batteries, expandable storage, ability to sideload apps or install third party app stores, or the ability to install skins, I would have gotten an android phone in the first place.
The thing is, I am not interested in concepts like more competition or a freer marketplace just for the sake of having a freer marketplace, but rather, what it can do for me. Apple created the modern App Store. They conditioned users to love and trust the download process. They aggregated the best customers. Problems like piracy were largely eliminated precisely because users are unable to sideload APK files the same way they could on Android. The benefit has been both a wider variety of apps available for us, and more revenue for developers, even after Apple's 30% cut.
You look at the google play store for all its openness, it pales in comparison. Malware is rife, profits are lower, piracy is commonplace, it's just a worse experience all around.
Competition is precisely what allows for consumer choice in the form of 2 competing platforms with very different approaches to the user experience, and users have the liberty of choosing what works best for them. I personally feel that the iOS App Store model is what allows for the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of users. You are free to disagree with me, which is precisely why Android exists.
Otherwise, what sort of meaningful choice is there to be had exactly if both app stores essentially become carbon copies of each other? What then is the point, and how exactly is this supposed to benefit the end user?
Why do people pay for makeup? Why do people pay for designer clothes? Why do people pay for popcorn at a movie theater?
People spend money on things they enjoy. Or they spend money because of peer pressure or an addiction or whatever reason.
Apple's App Store is not going away. You can choose to stay in the walled garden, if that's what you prefer.